DOCSLIB.ORG

Congress, the Judiciary, and the Rules for Federal Judicial Misconduct Proceedings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congress, the Judiciary, and the Rules for Federal Judicial Misconduct Proceedings An Un®nished Dialogue: Congress, the Judiciary, and the Rules for Federal Judicial Misconduct Proceedings ARTHUR D. HELLMAN* ABSTRACT Federal judges can be impeached and removed from of®ce for ªhigh crimes and misdemeanors,º but what can be done to investigate and remedy less serious misconduct? Congress gave its answer 40 years ago when it passed the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. The Act emerged from a series of complex interactions between Congress and the judiciary that could hardly be replicated today. Initially there was strong support, particularly in the Senate, for a central- ized, ªstrictly adjudicatoryº system, including a provision for removal of judges without impeachment. Over the course of several years, however, the judiciary persuaded Congress to build instead on the decentralized, ªadministrativeº approach that the federal judicial circuits were already using. The key actors in the system would be the circuit chief judges and the circuit councils. When the 1980 Act was passed, Congressional leaders emphasized the need for ªcontinuing dialog between the legislative and judicial branches, and vigor- ous oversight by Congress.º The ensuing decades have brought both dialogue and oversight. Of particular importance, in 2006, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee scolded the judiciary for what he viewed as lax enforce- ment of the Act. The judiciary responded in 2008 by promulgating the ®rst set of nationally binding rules for misconduct proceedings. Modest revisions were made to the Rules in 2015 and again in 2019; in both instances, expressions of concern from Congress played a role. The 2008 Rules re¯ected some policy changes from the non-binding ªIllustrative Rulesº that preceded them, and the two sets of revisions imple- mented further policy changes (sometimes restoring the pre-2008 policy). But rarely do the commentaries explain or even acknowledge the revisions. The treatment of revisions exempli®es a broader problem: the reluctance of the * Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Portions of this Article are adapted from the author's testimony at hearings of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States. I am grateful to Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution for comments on numerous earlier drafts. For assistance with research for Part I, thanks to Marc Silverman and Linda Tashbook of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law Library and to James Eaglin and Matt Sarago of the Federal Judicial Center. © 2019, Arthur D. Hellman. 341 342 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS [Vol. 32:341 Judicial Conference to acknowledge that some of the Rules re¯ect choices between competing values on matters where reasonable people could reach dif- ferent conclusions. This article examines some of the major policy issues raised by the Rules, par- ticularly against the background of skepticism about the ability and willingness of judges to police misconduct within their own ranks. Part I traces the evolution of the current system for addressing judicial misconduct, with emphasis on the interplay of congressional and judicial action. Part II provides a brief outline of the system's operation today. The article then examines three aspects of the sys- tem: transparency and disclosure, with a particular focus on ªhigh-visibilityº cases (Part III); disquali®cation of judges (Part IV); and review of orders issued by chief judges and judicial councils (Part V). A common thread is that in each of these areas the judiciary has promulgated rules that re¯ect sound policy but are in con¯ict or tension with statutory language. Moreover, these elements are more than procedural; they determine who makes the decisions and how much information the public receives. Part VI addresses other issues relating to the misconduct system and suggests some additional steps that the judiciary can take to increase the likelihood that misconduct or disability will be identi®ed and dealt with before further injury to court operations or public perceptions occurs. The article concludes with re¯ections on the interplay between Congress and the judiciary, past and future. It predicts that the dialogue will continue, and that the judiciary will seek to preserve its independence by responding to con- cerns about accountability, particularly when the call for action comes from in- ¯uential members of Congress. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................... 344 I. EVOLUTION OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM . 347 A. THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980. 347 1. THE RISE AND FALL OF NUNN-DECONCINI. 347 2. A FRESH START IN THE HOUSE ..................... 352 B. THE 1990 ACT AND THE NATIONAL COMMISSION REPORT 355 C. THE ILLUSTRATIVE RULES AND THE JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2002 ...................... 355 D. THE MANUEL REAL CONTROVERSY AND THE BREYER COMMITTEE REPORT ............................ 356 E. THE 2008 RULES AND THE 2015 AMENDMENTS . 358 2019] JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT RULES 343 F. THE WORKING GROUP REPORT AND THE 2019 AMENDMENTS ................................. 361 G. PERSPECTIVE: A STORY OF INTERBRANCH COOPERATION (MOSTLY) ......................... 362 II. OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM TODAY .................... 364 A. PROCEDURES UNDER THE ACT AND THE RULES . 364 B. ROUTINE COMPLAINTS AND ªHIGH-VISIBILITYº CASES. 367 C. JUDICIAL DISABILITY............................ 368 III. TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE...................... 369 A. IDENTIFYING COMPLAINTS BASED ON PUBLIC REPORTS. 369 B. THE NATURE AND TIMING OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. 370 1. INTERIM DISCLOSURES........................... 371 2. IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT JUDGE . 374 a. When the Complaint is Dismissed . 375 b. When the Judge Takes Voluntary Corrective Action 377 c. Revising the Policy......................... 378 3. MANNER OF MAKING ORDERS PUBLIC . 379 C. DEVELOPING A BODY OF INTERPRETIVE PRECEDENT . 381 D. REPORTING ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT . 383 IV. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES ......................... 384 A. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES UNDER INVESTIGATION . 384 B. DISQUALIFICATION OF CIRCUIT CHIEF JUDGE UNDER INVESTIGATION ................................ 386 C. INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF CHIEF-JUDGE FINAL ORDERS. 387 D. THE GENERAL RULE ON DISQUALIFICATION . 388 V. REVIEW OF CHIEF-JUDGE AND JUDICIAL-COUNCIL ORDERS . 391 A. REVIEW OF ORDERS IN ªIDENTIFIEDº AND SELF-FILED COMPLAINTS .................................. 392 B. CONDUCT COMMITTEE REVIEW IN TRACK-ONE CASES . 394 344 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS [Vol. 32:341 1. EVOLUTION OF THE RULE ......................... 394 2. AVAILABILITY AND SCOPE OF REVIEW . 395 C. REVIEW AFTER TRANSFER TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT . 397 D. A ªMORE AGGRESSIVE ADVISORY ROLEº FOR THE CONDUCT COMMITTEE .......................... 399 VI. OTHER ISSUES IN THE OPERATION OF THE MISCONDUCT SYSTEM .......................................... 401 A. CHIEF JUDGE'S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE NON-PUBLIC ALLEGATIONS ................................. 401 B. CHIEF JUDGE'S OBLIGATION TO APPOINT A SPECIAL COMMITTEE ................................... 403 C. TRANSFER TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT COUNCIL. 404 D. BURDEN OF PROOF IN JUDICIAL-COUNCIL FACTFINDING 405 E. EFFECT OF RESIGNATION OR RETIREMENT BY SUBJECT JUDGES....................................... 406 CONCLUSION: CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIARY, PAST AND FUTURE . 408 INTRODUCTION Tensions between Congress and the judiciary have been part of American po- litical life almost since the Founding, but confrontations between the two branches generally take place at a distance. Not so on the morning of March 16, 2004. The setting was the ornate East Conference Room of the United States Supreme Court. Twenty-six federal judges from all over the country had gathered for the semiannual meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the administrative policymaking body of the federal judiciary.1 Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, carrying out one of his statutory responsibilities, presided. Shortly after the meeting began, the Chief Justice introduced a visitor from the legislative branch: Representative F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.2 There was nothing unusual in that; the Conference regularly invites members of Congress with special responsibility for judiciary issues to report on current developments. 1. See 28 U.S.C. § 331 (2012). 2. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE U.S., REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES 3 (2004). 2019] JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT RULES 345 Sensenbrenner brusquely thanked the Judicial Conference for the invitation, then began reading from a prepared text.3 He spoke rapidly in a ¯at Midwestern voice, barely looking up at his audience. After a brief discussion of recent congressional action regarding the federal sentencing guidelines, he turned to the sentencing prac- tices of a particular judge, Chief Judge James M. Rosenbaum of the District of Minnesota.4 He said Judge Rosenbaum had become the subject of oversight by the House Judiciary Committee for what Sensenbrenner called ªmisleading testimony before the Committeeº and an ªillegal departureº from the Sentencing Guidelines.5 The members of the Conference stiffened in their chairs. A few glanced cov- ertly at their neighbors. The same thought was going through their minds: Did Sensenbrenner realize that Judge Rosenbaum was one of the judges sitting at the table? If he did, he gave
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. Judicial Branch 192 U.S
    U.S. G OVERNMENT IN N EBRASKA 191 U.S. JUDICIAL BRANCH 192 U.S. G OVERNMENT IN NEBRASKA U.S. JUDICIAL BRANCH1 U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Supreme Court Building: 1 First St. N.E., Washington, D.C. 20543, phone (202) 479-3000 Chief Justice of the United States: John G. Roberts, Jr. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Supreme Court is composed of the chief justice of the United States and such number of associate justices as may be fi xed by Congress. The current number of associate justices is eight. The U.S. president nominates justices, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article III, Section 1, further provides that “the Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offi ces during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Offi ce.” A justice may retire at age 70 after serving for 10 years as a federal judge or at age 65 after serving 15 years. The term of the court begins, by law, the fi rst Monday in October of each year and continues as long as the business before the court requires, usually until the end of June. Six members constitute a quorum. The court hears about 7,000 cases during a term.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Criminal Litigation in 20/20 Vision Susan Herman
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2009 Federal Criminal Litigation in 20/20 Vision Susan Herman Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation 13 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 461 (2009) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. FEDERAL CRIMINAL LITIGATION IN 20/20 VISION by Susan N. Herman* In this Article, the author examines three snapshots of the history of criminal litigation in the federal courts, from the years 1968, 1988, and 2008, with a view to predicting the future course of federal criminal adjudication. The author examines three different aspects offederal criminal litigation at these different points in time: 1) the volume and nature offederal criminal cases, 2) constitutional criminal procedure rules, and 3) federal sentencing, highlighting trends and substantial changes in each of those areas. Throughout the Article, the author notes the ways in which the future of federal criminal litigation greatly depends upon the politics of the future, includingpotential nominations to thefederal judiciary by President Barack Obama. I. IN T RO D U CT IO N ................................................................................ 461 II. CRIM INAL ADJUDICATION .............................................................. 462 III. CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ............................... 467 IV. SE N T EN C IN G ...................................................................................... 469 V. C O N C LU SIO N ..................................................................................... 471 I. INTRODUCTION This Article was adapted from a speech given at the 40th anniversary celebration of the Federal Judicial Center, hosted by Lewis & Clark Law School in September, 2008, to congratulate the Federal Judicial Center on forty years of excellent work.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts
    GETTY STEELE IMAGES/KIM Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts By Democracy and Government Reform Team February 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts By Democracy and Government Reform Team February 2020 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 7 The demographic compositions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals 10 1st Circuit 23 8th Circuit 12 2nd Circuit 25 9th Circuit 14 3rd Circuit 27 10th Circuit 16 4th Circuit 29 11th Circuit 18 5th Circuit 31 D.C. Circuit 20 6th Circuit 32 Federal Circuit 22 7th Circuit 33 The demographic compositions of the U.S. District Courts 36 District courts housed 66 District courts housed within the 1st Circuit within the 7th Circuit 39 District courts housed 71 District courts housed within the 2nd Circuit within the 8th Circuit 44 District courts housed 76 District courts housed within the 3rd Circuit within the 9th Circuit 48 District courts housed 86 District courts housed within the 4th Circuit within the 10th Circuit 54 District courts housed 91 District courts housed within the 5th Circuit within the 11th Circuit 60 District courts housed 97 District court housed within the 6th Circuit within the D.C. Circuit 110 Conclusion 111 Endnotes Introduction and summary Authors’ note: This report reflects data as of November 18, 2019. Its main goal is to provide advocates and policymakers with an accessible resource demonstrating general trends pertaining to the lack of demographic diversity across all of the lower federal courts. Some individual data points may have altered slightly between November and publication and are not reflected within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate the Senate Met at 9:30 A.M
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 109 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 151 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2005 No. 66 Senate The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was U.S. SENATE, EXECUTIVE SESSION called to order by the Honorable SAM PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, BROWNBACK, a Senator from the State Washington, DC, May 18, 2005. of Kansas. To the Senate: NOMINATION OF PRISCILLA Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, RICHMAN OWEN TO BE UNITED PRAYER of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR appoint the Honorable SAM BROWNBACK, a THE FIFTH CIRCUIT The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- Senator from the State of Kansas, to per- fered the following prayer: form the duties of the Chair. Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask Let us pray. TED STEVENS, unanimous consent that the Senate Eternal Spirit, the fountain of light President pro tempore. now proceed to executive session to and wisdom, without Whom nothing is Mr. BROWNBACK thereupon as- consider calendar No. 71, the nomina- holy and nothing prevails, You have sumed the Chair as Acting President tion of Priscilla Owen to be United challenged us to let our lights shine, so pro tempore. States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Cir- that people can see our good works and cuit; provided further that the first glorify Your Name. f hour of debate, from 9:45 to 10:45, be Today, shine the light of Your pres- RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME under the control of the majority lead- ence through our Senators and illu- er or his designee; further that the minate our Nation and world.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Appellate Judges' Choices About Gender-Neutral Language
    Articles Framing Gender: Federal Appellate Judges' Choices About Gender-Neutral Language By JUDITH D. FISCHER* Introduction LANGUAGE IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT in the two fields at the center of this Article. Language is the tool of the legal profession,1 and feminists recognize that language has been an instrument of both women's oppression and their liberation.2 This Article considers a question relevant to both fields: Are judges using gender-neutral lan- guage? For lawyers, the answer may inform their choice of wording when they write for judges.3 For feminists, the answer will be one marker of the success of their efforts in language reform. * Judith D. Fischer is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Louisville's Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. She appreciates the invaluable contribution to this Article's statistical analysis by Professor Jose M. Fernandez of the University of Louisville's Department of Economics and by attorney and mathematics doctoral candidate Carole Wastog. She thanks the law faculty at Indiana University at Indianapolis for their insightful suggestions at a presentation about this study. She is also grateful to Professors Craig Anthony Arnold, Kathleen Bean, Nancy Levit, Nancy Rapoport, and Joel Schumm for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts. Finally, thanks go to Amy Jay for her excellent research assistance. 1. See, e.g., FRANK E. COOPER, WRITING IN LAW PRAcTICE 1 (1963) ("[L]awyers have but one tool-language."); DAVID MELLINKOFF, THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAw, at vii (1963) ("The law is a profession of words."); Debra R. Cohen, Competent Legal Wrting-A Lauryer's ProfessionalResponsibility, 67 U.
    [Show full text]
  • Visiting Judges
    Visiting Judges Marin K. Levy* Despite the fact that Article III judges hold particular seats on particular courts, the federal system rests on judicial interchangeability. Hundreds of judges “visit” other courts each year and collectively help decide thousands of appeals. Anyone from a retired Supreme Court Justice to a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade to a district judge from out of circuit may come and hear cases on a given court of appeals. Although much has been written about the structure of the federal courts and the nature of Article III judgeships, little attention has been paid to the phenomenon of “sitting by designation”—how it came to be, how it functions today, and what it reveals about the judiciary more broadly. This Article offers an overdue account of visiting judges. It begins by providing an origin story, showing how the current practice stems from two radically different traditions. The first saw judges as fixed geographically, and allowed for visitors only as a stopgap measure when individual judges fell ill or courts fell into arrears with their cases. The second assumed greater fluidity within the courts, requiring Supreme Court Justices to ride circuit—to visit different regions and act as trial and appellate judges—for the first half of the Court’s history. These two traditions together provide the critical context for modern-day visiting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZK55M67 Copyright © 2019 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications.
    [Show full text]
  • September(27+29,(2013( Hon
    Jus4ces(and( Judges( Women&Transforming&Our& Communi1es&and&the&World& September(27+29,(2013( Hon. Ruth I. Abrams Class of 1956 “… it was clear one judge didn’t want me in the courtroom [even though I was the Assistant DA in Middlesex County]. He said I could not be in the courtroom without a hat and white gloves. The white hat and gloves were an excuse. Do you know how dirty the old Middlesex County courthouse was?” Honorable Ruth I. Abrams (Ret.) Justice, First Female Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Harvard Law School Class of 1956 Radcliffe College (A.B., 1953) Hon. Cynthia G. Aaron '84 Hon. Sharon V. Burrell '82 Hon. Mary Grace Diehl '77 Hon. Justice Arden '70 Hon. Zoe A. Bush '79 Hon. Raya S. Dreben '54 Hon. Christine M. Arguello '80 Hon. V. Buthelezi-Khampepe '82 Hon. Fernande R. V. Duffly '78 Hon. Deborah A. Batts '72 Hon. Diane O. Campbell '76 Hon. Antoinette L. Dupont '54 Hon. Carol Berkman '67 Hon. Yvonne E. Campos '88 Hon. Jacquelyn P. Eckert '94 Hon. Marie-France Bich '80 Hon. Susan L. Carney '77 Hon. Maryanne E. Elliott '90 Hon. Cathy Bissoon '93 Hon. Denise Jefferson Casper '94 Hon. Christine C. Ewell '86 Hon. Catherine C. Blake '75 Hon. Shelley C. Chapman '81 Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer '84 Hon. Karen J. Brandt '79 Hon. Dorothy Chin-Brandt '75 Hon. Dale S. Fischer '80 Hon. F. S. Brenneman '53 Hon. Cynthia J. Cohen '75 Hon. Fern Fisher '78 Hon. Eileen M. Brewer '87 Hon. Laura A. Cordero '88 Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S8340
    S8340 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 9, 2002 reaching the authorization of the funds Midwestern States—is that just refers CONCLUSION OF MORNING available. Certainly that authorization to farmers. I want to tell you it is BUSINESS is not totally enough to fill all the farmers, but it is also those who raise The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning needs, but it is an improvement over livestock, cattle, and sheep. People business is closed. the past. who are in that business need to be rec- f This also gives an opportunity for ognized as well, in terms of what we do those counties to create their own fi- here to help the agricultural industry EXECUTIVE SESSION nancial structure, much of which often during the drought. We will be dealing is tourism, which, again, is costly. I with that. We will come back to it. NOMINATION OF KENNETH A. thank the committee for what they I say again I hope we can set some MARRA, OF FLORIDA, TO BE have done with respect to payments in priorities for the relatively limited UNITED STATES DISTRICT lieu of taxes to the counties. I hope we amount of time left of this Congress. I JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DIS- are able to include that. Our allocation hope that we select those items that TRICT OF FLORIDA is larger than the House and we need to are timely, that need to be done. I un- bring that up so we have a satisfactory derstand when we come to the end of a The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under arrangement. session everybody has ideas of things the previous order, the hour of 1 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Sixth Circuit Federal Judicial Selection Carl W
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2003 Sixth Circuit Federal Judicial Selection Carl W. Tobias University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, Sixth Circuit Federal Judicial Selection, 36 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 721 (2003) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sixth Circuit Federal Judicial Selection Carl Tobias· TABLE OF CONTENTS I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................ 723 A. Introduction ................................................................................. 723 B. National Developments ................................................................ 724 1. The Persistent Vacancies Problem .................................... 725 a. The Early History ......................................................... 725 b. History Since 1950 ........................................................ 726 2. The Current Impasse .......................................................... 728 a. General Overview of the Current Impasse ............... 728 b. Specific Analysis of the Current Impasse .................. 731 (1) Nomination
    [Show full text]
  • Appellate Practice Webinar
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Appellate Practice Webinar September 8, 2021 Richmond, VA ********************************************************************** 1. Agenda ********************************************************************** FOURTH CIRCUIT APPELLATE PRACTICE WEBINAR S EPTEMBER 8, 2021, 9:00 A . M .– 12:00 P . M . Introduction: Circuit Judge James A. Wynn, Jr. 9:00 Insights on Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Chief Judge Roger Gregory leads a conversation with Michael Dreeben, former Deputy Solicitor General in charge of the government’s criminal docket. During his 30-year career with the Office of the Solicitor General, Mr. Dreeben argued over 100 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, becoming known for the brilliance of his intellect, his mastery of the art of oral argument, and his commitment to the ideals of justice. In this session, Mr. Dreeben shares his insights on Supreme Court and appellate practice and on representing the United States before the Supreme Court. Roger L. Gregory, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Michael R. Dreeben, Co-Chair, White Collar Defense and Corporate Investigations Practice, O’Melveny & Myers LLP Introduction: Circuit Judge James A. Wynn, Jr. 10:00 Effective Advocacy before the Fourth Circuit Circuit Judge Albert Diaz moderates a panel discussion with Circuit Judges Paul Niemeyer and Stephanie Thacker and appellate attorneys Kannon Shanmugam and Jennifer May-Parker. The panel shares the dos and don’ts of briefing and argument, answers questions about Fourth Circuit practice and procedure, and offers strategies for effective representation on appeal. Albert Diaz, Circuit Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Paul V. Niemeyer, Circuit Judge, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Charting a Path for Federal Judiciary Reform
    Revisiting and Confronting the Federal Judiciary Capacity “Crisis”: Charting a Path for Federal Judiciary Reform Peter S. Menell* and Ryan Vacca** The modern federal judiciary was established well over a century ago by the Judiciary Act of 1891. Over the next seventy years, the structure and core functioning of the judiciary largely remained unchanged apart from gradual increases in judicial slots. By the mid- 1960s, jurists, scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers had voiced grave concerns about the capacity of the federal system to function effectively in the face of ever-increasing caseloads. Heeding calls for reform, in 1972 Congress charged a commission chaired by Senator Roman Hruska to study the functioning of the federal courts and recommend reforms. After extensive study, the Hruska Commission concluded that “[n]o part of the federal judicial system has borne the brunt of . increased demands [to protect individual rights and basic liberties and resolve difficult issues affecting the financial structure and commercial life of the nation] more than the courts of appeals.”1 The Commission called attention to the Supreme Court’s capacity constraints and the risks to the body of national law posed by the growing number of circuit conflicts. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BK16Q3Q. Copyright © 2020 Peter S. Menell and Ryan Vacca. * Koret Professor of Law and Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. ** Professor of Law, University of New Hampshire School of Law. We thank the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Federal Judicial Center for providing data on the federal judiciary and to Su Li for exceptional research assistance in formatting, synthesizing, and analyzing the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Kavanaugh Part 2
    Dinh, Viet From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 12:52 PM To: Willett, Don; Koebele, Steve; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Enron/Owen Options Heather and Matt: Thoughts? Feinstein told Hutcheson that she has a problem with Owen not returning Enron contributions, an(b) (5) -----Original Message----- From: Willett, Don Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:56 AM To: Koebele, Steve; Dinh, Viet Subject: RE: Enron/Owen Options (b) (5) -----Original Message----- From: Koebele, Steve Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:33 AM To: Dinh, Viet Cc: Willett, Don Subject: Enron/Owen Options Viet, for your discussions today, please consider the following options ... (b) (5) Suggestion: (b) (5) Options: 1 2(b) (5) 007104-002458 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7387 3 Viet, I again recommen 007104-002459 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7387 Dinh, Viet From: Dinh,Viet Sent: Wednesday,March20,200212:14PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: VRADraftViewsletter Attachments: VRAviewsletter--final.wpd 007104-002460 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7300 Koebele, Steve From: Koebele, Steve Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:39 PM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Cc: McMahon, Lori; Goodling, Monica; Willett, Don; Dinh, Viet; O'Brien, Pat; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; (b)(6) Jennifer Oschal Email Dinh, Viet; Newstead, Jennifer; Keefer, WendyJ Subject: Owen Attachments Attachments: Biography-Owen.wpd; Campaign Fin-Enron 03-01-02.wpd All --Attached for your use are two documents related to Justice Owen: (1) a Biography that showcases her strong background;and (2) responsive talking points on the Enron case opinion.
    [Show full text]